Skip to main content

tv   Attorney General Loretta Lynch Testifies on Capitol Hill  CSPAN  July 14, 2016 10:26pm-10:52pm EDT

10:26 pm
the doj team composed of lawyers and agents in there. >> i am not sure if you are asking about -- i am not sure if other people are apart of it. i wish i had about 20 minutes, my time is expired. >> the committee will stand and recess for approximately 15 minutes.
10:27 pm
>> the committee will reconvene when the committee recess. we were questioning general lynch under the five minute rule. >> thank you mr. chair, madame attorney general, thank you very much for being with us today and for all of your time >> over the past several years, i have come to know a young man a dreamer in my district, his name is andre and he's a truly impressive young man. he's a bright student of volunteer in his community and an eloquent add vaccinate. someone like andre, his home at the washington state and in my
10:28 pm
idea we should be supporting dreamers like andre. i want your feedback, i want thank the supreme court supporting people like andre. >> thank you congresswoman. with respect to the courts for a ruling essentially refers to the most recent executive action taken by the president. if someone, young mr. andr andre -- well, that program has been joined at the state and federal level in texas and the city circuit that injunction remains in effect. which means the program is not currently implemented. >> if the ruling remains in place, what does it mean for the department of justice. would you view us as essentially
10:29 pm
taking away the discretion that you would have any other contact? >> well, certainly with respect to discretion, we'll still exercise our discretion in terms of what cases we prosecute and how we prosecute them. at the border we'll continue to focus on individuals who pose a threat to society and raising issues to violent crime and those with current records, we'll continue to focus on those individuals, who recently coming across the border. we'll continue to make public safe safety. of course, i am sure the department of homeland security will be looking at the ruling as well. >> backup a little bit, what did you think in a general sense and do you exercise -- >> we exercise this in every context. a resource issues for the most
10:30 pm
part and as well as the different priorities prevented by the challenges of the law enforcement environment. we, of course, are focusing on great attention of violent crime on the hill of opiate issues today. immigration cases are a large part of the our docket, we try to make sure we handle it fairly as well. we try to make sure that we protect individuals who live in immigrant communities. >> why do you think this particular case is so controversial given that you use the discretion in other way. >> i cannot speak to the point made by the decisions and the policies that are set forward. i lever ave it to them to characterize their views. certainly of a managering resources is an important of what we do. determining the people who should be our priority and
10:31 pm
targets and prosecutions is something that we do on a routine bases and we take a number of things into account for when looking at and as i indicated before of the type of threats posed by the individuals and certain groups of individuals. you look at the amount of law enforcement resource that we have to handle a situation and our ability to augment those resources or whether they are being diminished overtime. a number of things going into that calculation. >> um -- importing immigrants, making us safer? >> certainly i don't have a comment on the policy there. >> from a point of view, we focus on individuals who oppose dangers to the community. >> that is our focus is the protection of the american people. individuals who have a violent background, a violent history who engaged in violence, those individuals we would look at and
10:32 pm
find a way to remove them from the community either prosecution or deportation. we work on the department of homeland security on that issue. so we would look again at trying to make the community as safe as possible. >> thank you very much. i yield back mr. chair. >> thank you, i recognize the women in south carolina mr. gabby for five minutes. >> the central issue to me is this perception is rooted in realities o f a duo trial or two tier justice systems. i know you have dedicated your career to pursue of justice, you work for law enforcement woman who's holding nothing but a set of scales and i think it is important that she's blindfolded because she should not see the race or the gender or the socio
10:33 pm
economic status or the person in front of her. it is not just the suspect or the target or the defendant. the witnesses have to have confidence in the justice system. the jurors have to have confidence in the justice system and the public. >> so this duo track of different sets of rules for certain people, it does not matter if you are running for president, the same rules applied to everyone. >> let me ask you this, why did you think it is important to use official e-mail to conduct official business? >> it is important to do that. i think that certainly every department has chosen to craft the way in which they carry out their business and provides for
10:34 pm
ways of ding business in a secured system. >> so you use official e-mails to conduct official business. >> yes, sir, i do. >> okay. >> and do you ever e-mail or send or receive classified information on personal e-mail? >> i do not. >> i doubt you even use your usdoj dot gov e-mail, do you? >> only classified information. >> you don't use your u.s. doj. gov, you have a separate system to handle classified information. >> we have a separate system to handle security need. >> why is it important for you to not use personal e-mail to conduct public business and to
10:35 pm
use a separate more safely guarded system when you do handle classified information. >> that's the practice that i certainly always follow. sth >> it is not just a personal performanc pretrial conferenc preference. >> again, that's still sensitive law enforcement type and classified system for classified information. >> what element do you think is lacking in the statues as you evaluated as it relates to secretary clinton. >> as i indicated before and i want to make it clear that the reason why i will not go into the analysis that was provided of the session that we had between myself and the team is because we protect your team. they have to be free to provide information analysis and a confidential way without the fear or impact of there being a
10:36 pm
political influence on there. >> i understand that. >> that's why i have not gotten into that type of discussion. the team did evaluate the relevant statues that were considered. they looked at all the facts and evidence and every case, they apply them to that statue. >> all right, my specific question to you is which element of which offense did you find lacking from an elementary standpoint. >> in order to answer that, i have to go through the entire analysis. >> don't you think public session in a single track justice system is important enough that you can touch on what you thought is lacking? >> in this case, we have taken the unusual step in discussing ways the department simply does not. you want to provide more clarity into the situation. while i understand it is frustrating to a number of people civilians and as well as number of this body alike, we
10:37 pm
have taken extraordinary steps. >> let me ask you this. >> as i indicated before just so it is clear, my reasons for not going into the substance are the information that i received and reviewed before i make my decision to accept the recommendations that the team that i work with whether this case or any other free to provide confidential analysis and discussions. >> all due respect, you can do all what you just described and still tell the people what element, i mean the element of criminal -- there is no secret there. for you to go through the element and say as director comey did there is no consent. >> i am out of time but you have prosecuted reckless homicide case, don't isn't it true. >> in the context of violent crime. >> how about involuntary man slaughter? >> for the department?
10:38 pm
>> no, just prosecutor. >> there is felony dwi, where you did not mean to hurt anybody but you did and this lack of specific intent is not a defense in any of those cases. so i think the public would like to know how you determine she did not have the intent to break the law and why you are applying a specific intent of requirement here when you don't do it in certain homicide cases? >> congressman, i think you mentioned a number of states cases there. the reason why i am not going into the discussion i had and providing that level of information although the fbi director did choose to do so is that the information the team provides on this case has to be given in a zone of confidentiality so that they can be clear and sure that there is never a political over tone to their decisions nor applying one in accepting their decisions. >> that's why we have taken the unusual steps of providing greater information.
10:39 pm
as frustrating as it has been for a number of people to have additional information. that's why i take unusual steps of clarifying my role of this investigation. >> after this and director comey, people still believe that if you are famous there is a different set of rules that people don't know your name. you are missing a wonderful opportunity to say without specificity, which elementary element do you find lacking. congress can go fix the statue if you think we need to. we have no idea whether a president lynch can do what secretary clinton did. i think that lack of clarity is bad for the republican quite frankly. i would yield back. >> chair, thank you. recognizing the gentleman from rhode island for five minutes.
10:40 pm
>> thank you madame attorney general for being here for your time, we are living in difficult times where we see violence and guns plaguing our community. and respecting our critical and reducing our -- what i want to focus on is the first part of that. the most powerful weapon in the police department is trust the people they serve. i had the unfortunate occasion to those comfort of families lost to loved ones of mothers and fathers and siblings as well as in april of 2005, a law state of a police officer shooting of
10:41 pm
detective jimmy allen which was painful for the city and the department. both examples are horrible and painful events, not capable of easy answer or an extension. one thing that i found when i took over, we had a police department that's under investigation by the department of justice and civil rights issues. the community really lost confidence in the department. we really rebuild the economy of the community and remarkable turn around and we produce the lowest crime late in 40 years. it was an example of investing relationships between th the -- what i really want to ask you is the department of justice or congress can do to help around country. there was a 2007 national survey
10:42 pm
police leaders and may i identify insufficient resource and the supportive front line of offices, and i love your thoughts on what we can do as a congress and what doj is doing and how close these gaps of local and state one force agency. >> thank you for raising this important issue. it is becoming central to my tenure as attorney general. yet, residents and police officers together determine that they would rebuild to a positive relationship. as you note it can be done and has been done and i have seen it done. with respect of the department of justice is doing, we are supporting the work of policing around country through our policing service that provides technical assistance to police department upon their requests and one of the things we tried
10:43 pm
to do is matching up and crowd control for example, and a question of excessive force policy is really is sufficient. we try to pair them with police departments that have dealt with those issues and in fact come to a -- and we need to spread it as well. we also supporting through cops grants and local monunicipaliti hiring new officers. supporting the recommendations of the 21st century policing. particularly officers safety and wellness, i have been privileged to watch training and focusing on in still officers beginning their time on duty that when they are encountiering someone n the worst day of that civilian's
10:44 pm
life, they need as much training as possible. it was respected to officers and departments who want to set up wellness programs. who want to have a dedicated community policing officer and wants to expand their school resources and yet their municipalities are struggling to provide the resources. we try to help. a system of that is always well p welcome. >> quickly, in connection with that, there was a 2006 department of justice report of sound, police academy spent an average of 110 hours training their recruits on firearm skills and self defense but only eight hours on conflict management and mediation, i am wondering whether or not you think of that and what can be done given to more balance approach in the training. that policy is apart of this and out of this difficult time because of this tragedy in
10:45 pm
dallas and other shootings around our country, coming together to respond to this. >> the time of the gentleman has expired. >> i believe that police department around the country are looking at exactly that issue and trying to ensure they have training in mediation and most importantly deescalation, i have seen some of the training given to on duty officers as far as continuing education. >> thank you, ma'am, i yield back. >> there is another adjournment vote on the floor. a motion to adjourn. five minutes and the committee will stand to take the vote and recess. >> madame attorney general, thank you for being here and thank you for your service of this nation. i happen to disagree of what director comey's collusion, i
10:46 pm
have a greet deal of respect for h him. i have seen him to be an honorary man. >> director comey said repeatedly that secretary clinton and her colleagues were "extremely careless in handling highly classified information." do you agree with this assessment? >> i don't have a characterization of their actions. we do not characterize the action of the individuals. that was director comey's assessment of that. >> you don't accept his assessment but you accept his recommendation to charge. >> i do not come to a characterization or description he did. my discussion was focused on the investigation of what it reveals and how it applies to the legal standard. >> secretary clinton had a
10:47 pm
security clearance, correct? >> as far as i know, correct. >> what would happen to that person? >> it would be reviewed and investigated and appropriate actions will be taken. >> the facts uncovered under the fbi investigation could have cause her that security clearance, is that correct? >> i don't want to characterize the director's statement. >> they would have lost security clearance, correct? >> the matter is reviewed and handled according to the rules of agency. >> any other american with the security clearance had acted extremely carelessly with classified information, what would doj's position be prosecuting that person. with respect to whether or not the issue is whether it is the
10:48 pm
same here. >> with consideration that it was done here but it would have to again reflect all of the r l relevant facts. >> it would have been that someone acted extremely carelessly, what is that person's business on g-mail. >> i don't have a characterization or description. >> i am not asking for that. > >> i am saying if you would have found a regular person working at doj, carelessly handling classified information. >> the legal standard would have to be net, you have to look at the relevant statue regarding to that person's information. >> was director comey correct? >> you have said that. >> was director comey correct of
10:49 pm
a possible criminal prosecution when someone is found to have mishandled the classified information. >> certainly if he's speaking about the steps the fbi would have to take, he would be reflecting his agency and the understanding of that. >> had the department r reprimanded. >> this would be a public record if you had prosecuted somebody? >> it would be a public record but i don't have that information for you. >> rough not -- >> so if a low level doj, is
10:50 pm
reprimanded, would that person have any chance of promoted or advance in their career? >> i cannot speak to a hypothetical, i would urge caution using a characterization or description instead of a legal analysis. i think you have to look at the facts in every situation. >> i'm sorry. i'm actually confused by your statement. you want us to respect this conclusion, which i do, even though i disagree. but you don't want us to respect his words or take any statement he made at face value. is that what you're saying. >> as i said, before, a characterization or description was not the issue. it was a rel vabt legal standard and every case you'd look at the relevant legal statute. >> you can't tell us if one of your employees carelessly used information, whether you would advance them in your career or not. >> we look at every case and all these situations, all the facts
10:51 pm
and all the issues. e we apply the rules and we come to a decision and determination there. consistent with the rules of our organization as i believe any other organization would. >> i yield back. >> the committee will stand in recess until the completion of this vote in about 15 minutes.


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on